Colin Craig is on a one-man mission to rid politics of untruths and distortions. Good luck with that!

Here's an idea for a fun game. Try and write a blogpost that says what Russel Norman did about Colin Craig, but in a way that avoids getting a letter from Chapman Tripp threatening you with a defamation action.

(While we're talking about Chapman Tripp ... I'll bet there's someone in the litigation team there that rubs his (or, less likely, her) hands with glee whenever their PA tells them "It's Mr Craig on the line". Here comes a nice chunk of billable hours spent on nonsensical trivia!!!)

Then, once you've done written your version, you neknominate someone else in the blogosphere to take their turn at it. You're not allowed to pick whatsisname, you can try David Farrar (but realise that his team will be wanting Crazy Ol' Colin's 3-or-4 MPs come October), and G-d help you if you choose to engage with The Grey Badger.

So ... here's my go at it.

Colin Craig espouses a form of political ideology that, in my personal opinion, primarily relies on an emotional appeal to an entirely mythical 'better past' in which a woman's place was considered to be in the kitchen and homosexuals were compelled to hide their sexuality from public attention. Based upon the various statements on gender and sexuality issues he has made in recent years, it is fair to say that he is personally uncomfortable with women exercising sexual choice and views same-sex attraction as an aberrant and undesirable condition. Were he to gain a share of political power, it is highly likely he would support policies that would be harmful to many women and almost all gay people.

Try and write a blogpost ... in a way that avoids getting a letter from Chapman Tripp threatening you with a defamation action.

Dear Professor Geddis,

Your blog post of 17 February 2014 has come to the attention of our client, who takes great personal offence at being called "crazy" ... we invite you to consider publishing a full retraction and apology...

Of course, this nonsense marks precisely the sort of chilling effect the Court of Appeal in Lange sought to prevent when extending qualified privileged to cover political discussion of former, current and aspiring politicians.

Interesting that Chapman Tripp was then on the side of arguing to extend protection for such dialogue, yet now have a client who seemingly seeks to narrow it...

Colin Craig professes conservative Christianity. Though he himself is by no means explicit as to what this might portend, other politicallly active Christians, the Westboro Baptist Church for example, have not been unwavering in their support of womens' rights or those of the gay community. The political tactic of refusing to specify what one means is just as effective in attack as it is in recruitment, but neither contributes to the informed debate that (we hope) is one of key attributes of our democracy.

I'll bet there's someone in the litigation team there that rubs his (or, less likely, her) hands with glee whenever their PA tells them "It's Mr Craig on the line". Here comes a nice chunk of billable hours spent on nonsensical trivia!!!

I don't know... If Chapmann Tripp is anything like my own workplace (not a law firm), there are clients which you like and enjoy working with and might relax the charging structure from time to time, because they take on good advice and want to do beneficial things in intelligent ways which make good and efficient use of your skills in ways you recommend and are generally enjoyable to work with.... and you have clients who tend to have more of a meglomaniac bent on exactly what they want, for which you grit your teeth, let them help pay the bills, make absolutely sure you're charging every moment of time & materials because they'll keep pestering you about doing it exactly as they want, and then hope the publicity about the demanded task doesn't reflect back on you too much.

I see from his rebuttal of Russel Norman that Craig insists that he is in favour of a woman's ability to exercise choice. So this means he's pro choice? As in the right of a woman to exercise control over her fertility, including the right to safe, legal abortion? That's a reasonable inference don't you think? Whad'ya say, Colin Craig?

Perhaps he should get some media advice and not say things like "If they [women] want to be in the home - and I would not limit that to the kitchen for a moment - they should have that option". I know what he was trying to say, and it makes more sense in context, but jeez, you should at least make it hard for people to make you look like an idiot.

Colin Craig should be grateful that NZ women and Maori aren't as litigiously trigger happy as he is, after his claim that "New Zealand women are the most promiscuous in the world", and description of Maori as "bare bottomed natives".

My take on it is this; 'Any litigation is good litigation'. In other words, the political nous of Mr Craig should not be underestimated. Using the law to spread his parties message is as good a tool as any, and possibly cheaper, if a lid is put on the amount available for legal costs, and then bolted down.

The craggy one with pots of money: Milord, I have been roundly profaned.

Milord: What did the green thing from the slimy swamp actually say to or about you?

The craggy one with pots of money: He accused me of being anti-gay and said I didn’t like women who couldn’t cook. Which is a contradiction I expect you will struggle with, given that I have several children who, to my best recollection, were not heard by a gay in the closet being conceived in the kitchen.

Milord: What evidence do you have that your children were not conceived in the kitchen?

The craggy one with pots of money: Milord, my wife was cooking at the time.

Milord: at the time of what?

The craggy one with pots of money: at the time she was not heard conceiving by a gay man in the kitchen closet.

Milord: why do you keep gay men in the kitchen closet?

The craggy one with pots of money: so that they can hear my wife not conceiving in the kitchen. May it please your Lordship, I call witness LGBT. Who. I must admit, is slightly deaf.